DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application papers filed on 1 December 2022.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are pending.
Claims 7 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 June 2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1 December 2022, 26 February 2025, 15 July 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 8 is/are objected to because of the following informality(ies):
(A) At lines 11-12:
“wherein
that the drive arrangement comprises” is suggested to be: wherein [[that]] the drive arrangement further comprises. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(A) supporting carrier in claims 1 and 8,
(B) supporting frame structure in claims 1 and 8,
(C) supporting hull structure in claims 1 and 8,
(D) at least one supporting member in claims 2, and
(E) connection arrangement in claims 4 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Such corresponding structure is/are:
(A) at pg. 4, ll. 3-5, a supporting carrier includes a ring-shaped member,
(B) at pg. 4, ll. 15-21, a supporting frame structure includes a plate or elongated support members.
(C) at pg. 3, ll. 10-16, a supporting hull structure includes stringers, homogeneous supporting zone, or supports along sidewalls,
(D) at pg. 4, ll. 17-21, a supporting member includes a plate or elongated supporting members, and
(E) at pg. 4, ll. 30-34, a connection arrangement includes flanges, nuts, bolts, connecting ring, and/or sealing members.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(A) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(B) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-10, 13, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(A) Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites: “characterized in that.” The most relevant portion(s) of the specification found by the Office, at page 5, ll. 29-33, disclose(s) the marine vessel is characterized in that the drive arrangement comprises a supporting frame structure fixed to a supporting hull structure. Thus, claim 1 is rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the claim language prior to the phrase “characterized in that” are part of the preamble. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider the body of the claim to begin after the phrase: “the drive arrangement comprising:” at line 1.
(B) Claim(s) 2-6 and 19 is/are rejected due to inheriting the deficiency(ies) raised with regard to claim 1.
(C) Regarding Claim 2:
Claim 2 recites: “a supporting hull structure.” The most relevant portion(s) of the specification found by the Office, at Fig. 1, disclose(s) a supporting hull structure comprising a longitudinal stringer. Thus, claim 1 is rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the supporting hull structure of claim 2 is separate from, or the same as, the previously recited “supporting hull structure” of claim 1. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting at least one supporting hull structure to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(D) Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 recites: “the supporting frame structure is provided with a ring-shaped supporting carrier.” The most relevant portion(s) of the specification found by the Office, at page 2, ll. 31-32, disclose(s) the supporting carrier forms part of or is firmly fixed to the supporting frame structure. Thus, claim 3 is rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the supporting carrier of claim 3 is separate from, or the same as, the previously recited “supporting carrier” of claim 1. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting at least one ring shaped supporting carrier to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(E) Regarding Claim 5:
Claim 5 recites: “a further part of the drive arrangement.” The most relevant portion(s) of the specification found by the Office, at page 6, ll. 21-25, disclose(s) the drive arrangement has a further part. Thus, claim 5 is rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if further part of claim 5 is separate from, or the same as, the previously recited “further parts” of claim 1. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting at least one ring shaped supporting carrier to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(F) Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 recites: “a hull of the marine vessel comprises at least one structural beam, wherein the supporting hull structure comprises the at least one structural beam.” The most relevant portion(s) of the specification found by the Office, at Fig. 4, disclose(s) a hull and at least one structural beam. Thus, claim 9 is rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the supporting hull structure is complete without the at least one structural beam (i.e. it is unclear if the at least one structural beam is an addition to the supporting hull structure or forms the supporting hull structure). Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting a supporting hull structure with at least one beam to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(G) Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected due to inheriting the deficiency(ies) raised with regard to claim 9.
(H) Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites: “the hull of the marine vessel comprises at least two beams.” The most relevant portion(s) of the specification found by the Office, at Fig. 4, disclose(s) at least two beams. Thus, claim 10 is rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the supporting hull structure comprises the at least two beams or only comprises the at least one beam of claim 9. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting a supporting hull structure with at least one beam to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(I) Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 recites: “a further part of the drive arrangement.” The most relevant portion(s) of the specification found by the Office, at page 6, ll. 21-25, disclose(s) the drive arrangement has a further part. Thus, claim 5 is rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if further part of claim 5 is separate from, or the same as, the previously recited “further parts” of claim 1. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting at least one ring shaped supporting carrier to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(J) Regarding claim(s) 16:
Claim(s) 16 recite(s): preferably onto a section of the supporting frame structure... Thus, claim(s) 16 is/are rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation(s) following “preferably” are within the scope of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
(K) Regarding claim(s) 17:
Claim(s) 17 recite(s): preferably onto a section of the supporting frame structure... Thus, claim(s) 17 is/are rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation(s) following “preferably” are within the scope of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-14, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,368,517 to Macdonald et al. (hereinafter “MACDONALD”).
(A) Regarding Claim 1:
MACDONALD discloses:
A drive arrangement for a marine vessel, the drive arrangement comprising:
- an outboard drive unit provided with at least one propeller (65, Fig. 2), wherein the outboard drive unit is configured to be arranged on an outside of a transom (9, Fig. 1) of the marine vessel and to be connected via an opening (10) in the transom to further parts of the drive arrangement (e.g. inboard power plant, col. 1, ll. 59-60) arranged inside the marine vessel; and
- a supporting carrier (13, Fig. 1) configured to be arranged at the opening in the transom for fastening and support of the outboard drive unit so as to take up thrust and steering forces from the outboard drive unit when the drive arrangement is installed and used for propelling the marine vessel,
characterized in that the drive arrangement comprises a supporting frame structure (engine mount, col. 1, ll. 64-66) configured to be fixed to a supporting hull structure (not numbered in Fig. 1, see engine mount is connected to the structure at the bottom of the hull with nuts and screws) arranged on an inside of the marine vessel forward of the transom, the supporting frame structure further being configured to extend aft-wards from or along the supporting hull structure to the opening in the transom (e.g. the engine mount extends aft-wards to form tailpiece 13),
wherein the supporting carrier (13, Fig. 1) forms part of or is firmly fixed to the supporting frame structure (e.g. the engine mount extends aft-wards to form tailpiece 13).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
(I) The claim recites:
(1) “the outboard unit is configured to be arranged…and to be connected,”
(2) “a supporting carrier is configured to be arranged,”
(3) “a supporting frame structure configured to be fixed,”
(4) “the supporting frame structure further being configured to.”
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device and is capable of performing the recited function then the prior art device necessarily possesses the functionality claimed. In this case, the outboard unit (of Fig. 2), supporting carrier (13), and supporting frame structure (i.e. engine mount) of MACDONALD meets the structural limitations of the claimed outboard unit, supporting carrier and supporting frame structure. Thus, the functionally defined limitations claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device (MPEP 2114(I)).
(II) The claim recites: “so as to take up thrust and steering forces from the outboard drive unit when the drive arrangement is installed and used for propelling the marine vessel.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device then the prior art device can necessarily be used as claimed. In this case, the supporting carrier (13) of MACDONALD meets the structural limitations of the claimed supporting carrier. Thus, recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art device satisfying all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP 2114(II)).
(B) Regarding Claim 3:
MACDONALD further discloses:
the supporting frame structure is provided with a ring-shaped supporting carrier (e.g. at 13, Fig. 1) configured to fit into a circular opening in the transom (10).
(C) Regarding Claim 4:
MACDONALD further discloses:
the drive arrangement comprises a connection arrangement (Figs. 1 and 8, see bolts, spring, pin, and seal 14) for connecting the outboard drive unit to the supporting carrier (13), wherein the connection arrangement is configured to allow fixation of the outboard drive unit to the supporting carrier when the supporting frame structure is installed inside the marine vessel and the outboard drive unit is located outside of the marine vessel.
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
The claim recites: “the connection arrangement is configured to.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device and is capable of performing the recited function then the prior art device necessarily possesses the functionality claimed. In this case, the connection arrangement (Figs. 1 and 8) of MACDONALD meets the structural limitations of the claimed connection arrangement. Thus, the functionally defined limitations claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device (MPEP 2114(I)).
(D) Regarding Claim 5:
MACDONALD further discloses:
a further part of the drive arrangement is arranged onto a section of the supporting frame structure (engine mount, col. 1, ll. 64-66) configured to be fixed to the supporting hull structure, wherein the further part of the drive arrangement is an internal combustion engine, an electric battery, an electric generator or a fuel cell system (inboard engine, col. 5, ll. 5).
(E) Regarding Claim 6:
MACDONALD further discloses:
the at least one propeller (65, Fig. 2) is arranged on a lower part of the outboard drive unit and wherein at least the lower part of the outboard drive unit is arranged to allow pivoting from side to side for steering of the marine vessel (col. 4, ll. 14-16).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
The claim recites: “the lower part of the outboard drive unit is arranged to allow pivoting.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device and is capable of performing the recited function then the prior art device necessarily possesses the functionality claimed. In this case, the outboard drive unit of MACDONALD meets the structural limitations of the claimed outboard drive unit. Thus, the functionally defined limitations claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device (MPEP 2114(I)).
(F) Regarding Claim 8:
MACDONALD further discloses:
A marine vessel comprising a drive arrangement for propulsion of the marine vessel, the drive arrangement comprising:
- an outboard drive unit provided with at least one propeller (65, Fig. 2), wherein the outboard drive unit is arranged on an outside of a transom (9, Fig. 1) of the marine vessel and is connected via an opening (10) in the transom to one or more further parts of the drive arrangement arranged inside the marine vessel (e.g. inboard power plant, col. 1, ll. 59-60); and
- a supporting carrier (13, Fig. 1) arranged at the opening in the transom, wherein the outboard drive unit is fastened to the supporting carrier and wherein the supporting carrier supports the outboard drive unit so as to take up thrust and steering forces from the outboard drive unit when operating the drive arrangement,
wherein that the drive arrangement comprises a supporting frame structure (engine mount, col. 1, ll. 64-66) fixed to a supporting hull structure (not numbered in Fig. 1, see engine mount is connected to the structure at the bottom of the hull with nuts and screws) arranged on an inside of the marine vessel forward of the transom,
wherein the supporting frame structure extends aft-wards from or along the supporting hull structure to the opening in the transom (e.g. the engine mount extends aft-wards to form tailpiece 13),
wherein the supporting carrier (13, Fig. 1) forms part of or is firmly fixed to the supporting frame structure (e.g. the engine mount extends aft-wards to form tailpiece 13).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
The claim recites: “so as to take up thrust and steering forces from the outboard drive unit when the drive arrangement is installed and used for propelling the marine vessel.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device then the prior art device can necessarily be used as claimed. In this case, the supporting carrier (13) of MACDONALD meets the structural limitations of the claimed supporting carrier. Thus, recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art device satisfying all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP 2114(II)).
(G) Regarding Claim 9:
MACDONALD further discloses:
a hull of the marine vessel comprises at least one structural beam (not numbered in Fig. 1, see engine mount is connected to the beam structure at the bottom of the hull with nuts and screws), wherein the supporting hull structure comprises the at least one structural beam, and wherein the supporting frame structure (engine mount, col. 1, ll. 64-66) is fixed to the at least one structural beam (e.g. see screws, Fig. 1).
(H) Regarding Claim 11:
MACDONALD further discloses:
the supporting frame structure (engine mount, col. 1, ll. 64-66) is provided with a ring-shaped member (13, Fig. 1), wherein the opening (10) in the transom has a circular shape, and wherein the ring-shaped member is configured to fit into the circular opening.
(I) Regarding Claim 12:
MACDONALD further discloses:
the drive arrangement comprises a connection arrangement (Figs. 1 and 8, see bolts, spring, pin, and seal 14) for connecting the outboard drive unit to the supporting carrier (13, Fig. 1), wherein the connection arrangement is configured to allow fixation of the outboard drive unit to the supporting frame structure when the supporting frame structure is installed inside the marine vessel and the outboard drive unit is located outside of the marine vessel.
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
The claim recites: “the connection arrangement is configured to.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device and is capable of performing the recited function then the prior art device necessarily possesses the functionality claimed. In this case, the connection arrangement (Figs. 1 and 8) of MACDONALD meets the structural limitations of the claimed connection arrangement. Thus, the functionally defined limitations claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device (MPEP 2114(I)).
(J) Regarding Claim 13:
MACDONALD further discloses:
a further part of the drive arrangement is arranged onto a section of the supporting frame structure (engine mount, col. 1, ll. 64-66) fixed to the supporting hull structure (not numbered in Fig. 1, see engine mount is connected to the beam structure at the bottom of the hull with nuts and screws), wherein the further part of the drive arrangement is an internal combustion engine (inboard engine, col. 5, ll. 5).
(K) Regarding Claim 14:
MACDONALD further discloses:
the at least one propeller (65, Fig. 2) is arranged on a lower part of the outboard drive unit and wherein at least the lower part of the outboard drive unit is arranged to allow pivoting from side to side for steering of the marine vessel (col. 4, ll. 14-16).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
The claim recites: “the lower part of the outboard drive unit is arranged to allow pivoting.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device and is capable of performing the recited function then the prior art device necessarily possesses the functionality claimed. In this case, the outboard drive unit of MACDONALD meets the structural limitations of the claimed outboard drive unit. Thus, the functionally defined limitations claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device (MPEP 2114(I)).
(L) Regarding Claim 17:
MACDONALD further discloses:
the drive arrangement further comprises an internal combustion engine (inboard engine, col. 5, ll. 5) arranged inside the marine vessel, preferably onto a section of the supporting frame structure arranged onto the supporting hull structure (engine mount, col. 1, ll. 64-66).
(M) Regarding Claim 19:
MACDONALD further discloses:
Method for installing a drive arrangement according to claim 1 in a marine vessel, the method comprising:
- fixing the supporting frame structure (engine mount, col. 1, ll. 64-66) to a supporting hull structure (not numbered in Fig. 1, see engine mount is connected to the beam structure at the bottom of the hull with nuts and screws) arranged on an inside of the marine vessel forward of the transom;
- connecting the outboard drive unit to the supporting carrier (13, Fig. 1) from an outside of the marine vessel (via the connection arrangement, see Fig. 8).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPRETATION:
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device, the prior art device would necessarily perform the method step(s) claimed. In this case, the drive arrangement of MACDONALD meets the structural limitations of the claimed drive arrangement. Thus, the method step(s) claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device (MPEP 2112.02(I)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MACDONALD, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,957,462 to Erickson (hereinafter “ERICKSON”).
(A) Regarding Claim 2:
MACDONALD teaches:
A supporting frame structure (engine mount, col. 1, ll. 64-66) comprises at least one supporting member (e.g. the legs of the engine mount, not numbered, Fig. 1) configured to be fixed to a supporting hull structure arranged in a bottom of a hull of the marine vessel (see engine mount is connected to the supporting member at the bottom of the hull with nuts and screws, not numbered, Fig. 1,).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
The claim recites: “at least one supporting member configured to be fixed.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device and is capable of performing the recited function then the prior art device necessarily possesses the functionality claimed. In this case, the supporting member of MACDONALD meets the structural limitations of the claimed supporting member. Thus, the functionally defined limitations claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device (MPEP 2114(I)).
However, the difference between MACDONALD and the claimed invention is that MACDONALD does not explicitly teach a longitudinal stringer.
ERICKSON teaches:
The front engine support member (46, Figs. 2-3) is fixed to a supporting hull structure comprising a longitudinal stringer (42, Figs. 2-3).
Thus, ERICKSON teaches mounting an engine on longitudinal stringers arranged along the bottom of the hull is a known technique for improving support of the engine in the longitudinal direction (ERICKSON col. 2, ll. 30-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this known technique to the supporting hull structure of MACDONALD in order to support the front section of the engine and thereby achieve the predictable result of supporting the rear section of the engine in the longitudinal direction (ERICKSON col. 2, ll. 30-33).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MACDONALD, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of ERICKSON.
(A) Regarding Claim 10:
MACDONALD teaches:
A supporting frame structure (engine mount, col. 1, ll. 64-66) comprises at least one supporting member (e.g. the legs of the engine mount, not numbered, Fig. 1) configured to be fixed to a supporting hull structure arranged in a bottom of a hull of the marine vessel (see engine mount is connected to the supporting member at the bottom of the hull with nuts and screws, not numbered, Fig. 1,).
NOTE ON CLAIM INTERPREATION:
The claim recites: “at least one supporting member configured to be fixed.” Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device meets the structural limitations of the claimed device and is capable of performing the recited function then the prior art device necessarily possesses the functionality claimed. In this case, the supporting member of MACDONALD meets the structural limitations of the claimed supporting member. Thus, the functionally defined limitations claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device (MPEP 2114(I)).
However, the difference between MACDONALD and the claimed invention is that MACDONALD does not explicitly teach a longitudinal stringer.
ERICKSON teaches:
The front engine support member (46, Figs. 2-3) is fixed to a supporting hull structure comprising a longitudinal stringer (42, Figs. 2-3).
Thus, ERICKSON teaches mounting an engine on longitudinal stringers arranged along the bottom of the hull is a known technique for improving support of the engine in the longitudinal direction (ERICKSON col. 2, ll. 30-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this known technique to the supporting hull structure of MACDONALD in order to support the front section of the engine and thereby achieve the predictable result of supporting the rear section of the engine in the longitudinal direction (ERICKSON col. 2, ll. 30-33).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MACDONALD, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0263165 to Rolla (hereinafter “ROLLA”).
(A) Regarding Claim 15:
MACDONALD teaches:
The drive arrangement further comprises an internal combustion engine (inboard engine, col. 5, ll. 5) configured to drive the propeller (65, Fig. 2).
However, the difference between MACDONALD and the claimed invention is that MACDONALD does not explicitly teach an electric motor configured to drive the propeller, wherein the electric motor is arranged in the outboard drive unit.
ROLLA teaches:
An electric motor (262, Figs. 10-12) having an electricity source (204) configured to drive a propeller (44), is arranged in an outboard drive unit.
Thus, both MACDONALD and ROLLA teach driving a propeller. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electric motor of ROLLA for the engine of MACDONALD to achieve the predictable result of driving the propeller. See MPEP 2141(III)).
(B) Regarding Claim 16:
Modified MACDONALD further teaches:
The drive arrangement further comprises an electricity source for powering the electric motor, wherein the electricity source comprises an electric battery (ROLLA 204, Fig. 12), wherein the electricity source is arranged inside the marine vessel (ROLLA Fig. 11), preferably onto a section of the supporting frame structure (MACDONALD, e.g. engine mount, col. 1, ll. 64-66) arranged onto the supporting hull structure (MACDONALD, not numbered in Fig. 1, see engine mount is connected to the beam structure at the bottom of the hull with nuts and screws).
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9,623,946 to DeLise, Sr. teaches a marine vessel with inboard electric motor with drive shaft extending through the transom, US 7,237,499 to Armstrong et al. teaches engine is mounted on longitudinal stringers on the marine vessel hull, US 7,175,491 to Davis et al. teaches engine is mounted on longitudinal beams adjacent the transom, US 6,287,159 to Polakowski et al. teaches a support apparatus for a marine propulsion system at the transom opening.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA M MCCAFFREY whose telephone number is (571)272-3438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (excluding Wednesday) 10AM - 2 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached on 571-272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KAYLA M. MCCAFFREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/Kayla McCaffrey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745